Rajasthan High Court
M/S Raj Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd vs M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ... on 14 July, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Arbitration Application No. 11/2021
M/s Raj Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., F-1, Adarsh Residency Plot
No. 443, Vidyut Nagar-A, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302021 Through
Its Authorized Signatory Dr. Rajesh Jhajharia, Managing Director
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Singh Choudhary, aged about 45 years, R/o
54, 443, Vidyut Nagar-A, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302021
(Rajasthan.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through Its Chief
General Manager, Telecom Division, Rajasthan Circle,
Jaipur (Rajasthan), Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-
302008, Rajasthan.
2. M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through Its General
Manager, Telecom Division, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Saharan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra with
Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 07/07/2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 14/07/2022
1. This Arbitration Application has been filed under Section 11
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of
sole arbitrator.
2. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that notice
inviting tender was issued by the respondent on 29.10.2018.
Applicant was declared successful and he was directed to send
consent and observe the formalities vide letter dated 03.01.2019.
Applicant in compliance thereof submitted the relevant
(2 of 3) [ARBAP-11/2021]
documents. It is also contended that without any reason, the work
order was not provided, on which letters were issued to the
respondent and ultimately the bid tender was cancelled. It is
further contended that in the notice inviting tender, there was an
arbitration clause and inspite of notice given by the applicant,
arbitrator has not been appointed. It is also contended that the
applicant is entitled to have an arbitrator appointed by the Court.
3. Counsel for the non-applicant/respondent has opposed the
Arbitration Application. It is contended that no agreement was
executed, no work order was issued and no final acceptance letter
was given to the applicant in respect of the work. It is also
contended that since no agreement was entered into between the
parties, the present arbitration application cannot be entertained.
4. I have considered the contentions and have perused the
record.
5. As per the documents annexed, there is an arbitration clause
with regard to any dispute that may arise between the bidder and
respondent. The respondent has not appointed an arbitrator
inspite of issuance of the notice by the applicant. Any objection
that the respondent is taking before this Court, can be taken
before the arbitrator, hence, I deem it proper to allow the
Arbitration Application.
6. This Court appoints Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal (Retd. District
Judge), 152/61, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur as an Arbitrator
to decide the dispute.
7. Accordingly, Arbitration Application stands allowed. The
Arbitrator shall be entitled to lay down fees as provided under
Manual of Procedure for Alternative Disputes Resolution, 2009 as
amended from time to time.
(3 of 3) [ARBAP-11/2021]
8. Registry is directed to intimate Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal
(Retd. District Judge) and obtain his formal consent.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
SUNIL SOLANKI /PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
